Members no longer with us

[Dod101]

Not sure if this is the correct Board or not but whilst looking up our list of Lemons, I came across the name of the late Gengulphus. I appreciate that this is sensitive but could I respectfully suggest that his name and that of any other deceased Lemon is removed from the list of members?

Dod

[Itsallaguess]

Wouldn't one of the best ways for us to be able to honour and remember Gengulphus, and other Lemons that are no longer with us, be for them to remain a member of the site, where their usernames and the posts and memories that they've left here can be revisited from time to time, which in Gengulphus's case would be quite often, I imagine, given how informative and useful many of them were over the years?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[servodude]

I'm with Itsallaguess here.

I'm sure it could be done sensitivity IF the software that runs the site had been designed to cope with it, but my experience of having to remove users from systems has generally been hit and miss.

TLF used to persist the history of a user's name (I'm not sure how it rendered historical pages though).
Perhaps if such a feature exists presently, or if users can be annotated (as mods are for display), there could be a way to flag that a post was by a member known to have left us?

If not...
I'm happy to consider it part of "living on"

-sd

[88V8]

Not sure if this is the correct Board or not but whilst looking up our list of Lemons, I came across the name of the late Gengulphus. I appreciate that this is sensitive but could I respectfully suggest that his name and that of any other deceased Lemon is removed from the list of members?

The internet is becoming full of the dead... abandoned websites, forum members passed on.
I think it would be a shame if he were erased. Shades of Stalin.

Anyway, what about reincarnation? He might want to resume one day.

V8

[Dod101]

In some ways I am surprised at the reaction. I can quite see that we do not want to erase all their posts and I was not envisaging that. Surely we can retain these but remove the names of the deceased members from the list of active members. Leaving them there is plain creepy to me and in any case what right has TLF to confer immortality on a now deceased member?

Why not another list of past members (or if anyone is into euphemisms ‘passed’ members)? All of their posts could then be retained against their name.

Anyway my comment was addressed to the site management as much as to the membership, although I expect that the site management will be happy to have views from the members.

Dod

[Mike4]

In some ways I am surprised at the reaction. I can quite see that we do not want to erase all their posts and I was not envisaging that. Surely we can retain these but remove the names of the deceased members from the list of active members. Leaving them there is plain creepy to me and in any case what right has TLF to confer immortality on a now deceased member?

Why not another list of past members (or if anyone is into euphemisms ‘passed’ members)? All of their posts could then be retained against their name.

Anyway my comment was addressed to the site management as much as to the membership, although I expect that the site management will be happy to have views from the members.

Dod

I very much agree with you. It seems incongruous not to acknowledge that members have passed over. Equally though, deleting their username would presumably mean deleting their posts, or access to them, or having them labelled as <deleted member> or some such term.

I'd like to suggest it might be appropriate to keep their usernames alive but appended with, say, "(D)" for 'deceased', provided the site owners are satisfied they really are deceased. Or something along those lines.

[servodude]

In some ways I am surprised at the reaction. I can quite see that we do not want to erase all their posts and I was not envisaging that. Surely we can retain these but remove the names of the deceased members from the list of active members. Leaving them there is plain creepy to me and in any case what right has TLF to confer immortality on a now deceased member?

Why not another list of past members (or if anyone is into euphemisms ‘passed’ members)? All of their posts could then be retained against their name.

Anyway my comment was addressed to the site management as much as to the membership, although I expect that the site management will be happy to have views from the members.

Dod

I very much agree with you. It seems incongruous not to acknowledge that members have passed over. Equally though, deleting their username would presumably mean deleting their posts, or access to them, or having them labelled as <deleted member> or some such term.

I'd like to suggest it might be appropriate to keep their usernames alive but appended with, say, "(D)" for 'deceased', provided the site owners are satisfied they really are deceased. Or something along those lines.

The risks with deleting or changing a username is that it can lead to inadvertant collision should a new user accidentally assume the identity of a former user.

I've had a quick look at the phpBB forums and it seems this has been considered (not sure if in the mainline version though it might just be an extension) through use of an INACTIVE_DECEASED value in a field of the user's account.

If this is not available then there would probably be a proxy value that could be used which would also remove the accounts from the active list. Another, or additional, option might be to move the accounts to a group that reflects their status; this can then be shown in how their names are displayed.

[Dod101]

In some ways I am surprised at the reaction. I can quite see that we do not want to erase all their posts and I was not envisaging that. Surely we can retain these but remove the names of the deceased members from the list of active members. Leaving them there is plain creepy to me and in any case what right has TLF to confer immortality on a now deceased member?

Why not another list of past members (or if anyone is into euphemisms ‘passed’ members)? All of their posts could then be retained against their name.

Anyway my comment was addressed to the site management as much as to the membership, although I expect that the site management will be happy to have views from the members.

Dod

I very much agree with you. It seems incongruous not to acknowledge that members have passed over. Equally though, deleting their username would presumably mean deleting their posts, or access to them, or having them labelled as <deleted member> or some such term.

I'd like to suggest it might be appropriate to keep their usernames alive but appended with, say, "(D)" for 'deceased', provided the site owners are satisfied they really are deceased. Or something along those lines.

That is an idea I had not thought of.

Dod

[AsleepInYorkshire]

In some ways I am surprised at the reaction. I can quite see that we do not want to erase all their posts and I was not envisaging that. Surely we can retain these but remove the names of the deceased members from the list of active members. Leaving them there is plain creepy to me and in any case what right has TLF to confer immortality on a now deceased member?

Why not another list of past members (or if anyone is into euphemisms ‘passed’ members)? All of their posts could then be retained against their name.

Anyway my comment was addressed to the site management as much as to the membership, although I expect that the site management will be happy to have views from the members.

Dod

I very much agree with you. It seems incongruous not to acknowledge that members have passed over. Equally though, deleting their username would presumably mean deleting their posts, or access to them, or having them labelled as <deleted member> or some such term.

I'd like to suggest it might be appropriate to keep their usernames alive but appended with, say, "(D)" for 'deceased', provided the site owners are satisfied they really are deceased. Or something along those lines.

That is an idea I had not thought of.

Dod

If I may add my thoughts please. My immediate thought when I read Dod's OP was to do something similar as Mike4 suggests. Can I suggest purely as a mark of respect for the big G that we ask his brother's opinion please? I was going to suggest adding an icon for something like say a cross - but that would assume Gengulphus had particular religious beliefs or set a precedent for the future. So perhaps a personal addition to Mr. G's name and one that could be provided by his brother which allows new users to understand his posts are part of a much greater legacy.

AiY(D)

[Dod101]

In some ways I am surprised at the reaction. I can quite see that we do not want to erase all their posts and I was not envisaging that. Surely we can retain these but remove the names of the deceased members from the list of active members. Leaving them there is plain creepy to me and in any case what right has TLF to confer immortality on a now deceased member?

Why not another list of past members (or if anyone is into euphemisms ‘passed’ members)? All of their posts could then be retained against their name.

Anyway my comment was addressed to the site management as much as to the membership, although I expect that the site management will be happy to have views from the members.

Dod

I very much agree with you. It seems incongruous not to acknowledge that members have passed over. Equally though, deleting their username would presumably mean deleting their posts, or access to them, or having them labelled as <deleted member> or some such term.

I'd like to suggest it might be appropriate to keep their usernames alive but appended with, say, "(D)" for 'deceased', provided the site owners are satisfied they really are deceased. Or something along those lines.

That is an idea I had not thought of.

Dod

If I may add my thoughts please. My immediate thought when I read Dod's OP was to do something similar as Mike4 suggests. Can I suggest purely as a mark of respect for the big G that we ask his brother's opinion please? I was going to suggest adding an icon for something like say a cross - but that would assume Gengulphus had particular religious beliefs or set a precedent for the future. So perhaps a personal addition to Mr. G's name and one that could be provided by his brother which allows new users to understand his posts are part of a much greater legacy.

AiY(D)

I do not think that it would be right to single out an individual. We are all equal on this Forum, or at least should be surely?

Dod

[Itsallaguess]

If I may add my thoughts please. My immediate thought when I read Dod's OP was to do something similar as Mike4 suggests. Can I suggest purely as a mark of respect for the big G that we ask his brother's opinion please? I was going to suggest adding an icon for something like say a cross - but that would assume Gengulphus had particular religious beliefs or set a precedent for the future.

So perhaps a personal addition to Mr. G's name and one that could be provided by his brother which allows new users to understand his posts are part of a much greater legacy.

I do not think that it would be right to single out an individual. We are all equal on this Forum, or at least should be surely?

Agreed, and whilst I appreciate why AiY is suggesting it, and that the suggestion is coming from a deep desire for empathy on this point, I don't think it would be particularly fair to put the onus of answering such a question on a surviving relative of a single member who might be contactable, where even if an answer might be given, it wouldn't seem fair to adopt such a personal-view policy onto other users who are also sadly not now with us...

I think this is such a delicate situation where, unless it's absolutely clear that instructions have been left to deal with it on a user by user basis, then the much more suitable thing to do is to simply let things stand, with user details and their legacy postings then continuing to add to the richness of this place whilst the site continues to operate...

As a slightly related aside whilst I'm here, I have long lamented the loss of Plastic Tortoise and his absolutely brilliant investment-strategy board from the old Motley Fool site, and I would have loved to have had the opportunity to be able to link back from here to some of his hugely interesting and educational posts that I grew up on during my early TMF years, and I hope that this site continues to be able to nurture and make available the huge amount of useful information from some of the posters that we've sadly lost recently.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[richfool]

It doesn't trouble me, as I don't go looking through the list of members, (past present or future! ).

I'm more interested in posts about investment trusts and asset allocations.

[Lootman]

The risks with deleting or changing a username is that it can lead to inadvertant collision should a new user accidentally assume the identity of a former user.

Users do get deleted from TLF. Either because a user requests that or because they are barred for some reason. In those cases the account can no longer be seen or used, but presumably continues to exist as a record on the file to ensure that nobody else can later open an account and reuse that name.

Likewise it seems that you cannot actually change a user name. Rather the old one gets disabled and then you set up a new one. For example I notice that Dod has had two very similar but different user names over the life of TLF, for reasons that he presumably can attest to.

The simplest way I check to see if a Lemon is still active is to look at the date of his last post, which is conveniently available. If it is months or years ago then I assume that they are dormant or inactive either by choice or by events. I do not personally see the need to elevate the status of any individual former Lemon to the exclusion of others.

[Dod101]

The risks with deleting or changing a username is that it can lead to inadvertant collision should a new user accidentally assume the identity of a former user.

Users do get deleted from TLF. Either because a user requests that or because they are barred for some reason. In those cases the account can no longer be seen but presumably exists as a record on the file to ensure that nobody else can later open an account and reuse that name.

Likewise it seems that you cannot actually change a user name. Rather the old one gets disabled and then you set up a new one. For example I notice that Dod has had two very similar but different user names over the life of TLF, for reasons that he presumably can attest to.

The simplest way I check to see if a Lemon is still active is to look at the date of his last post, which is conveniently available. If it is months or years ago then I assume that they are dormant or inactive either by choice or by events. I do not personally see the need to elevate the status of any individual former Lemon to the exclusion of others.

There are a surprising number of Lemons who appear never to have posted.

I have two registered names, Dod1010 and Dod101. The earlier one was the one I registered with in November 2016, like the majority of regular posters who migrated from TMF. I do not remember now why I registered a new name but I think I had mucked up the password or something on the old one. I would not mind in the least if the previous name were deleted (and the posts associated with it) The fact is that a lot of my posts anyway are cringeworthy when read in isolation so I have no problem about them being deleted as they were written to answer something at the time only. Few posts, even, I suggest, those of our late esteemed poster Gengulphus, really stand the test of time.

Dod

[Lootman]

I have two registered names, Dod1010 and Dod101. The earlier one was the one I registered with in November 2016, like the majority of regular posters who migrated from TMF. I do not remember now why I registered a new name but I think I had mucked up the password or something on the old one. I would not mind in the least if the previous name were deleted (and the posts associated with it) The fact is that a lot of my posts anyway are cringeworthy when read in isolation so I have no problem about them being deleted as they were written to answer something at the time only.

One reason someone might wish to retain their full posting history in such a case is that it also records the number of posts made and the number of thanks/upvotes they have received (and made).

May not be important to many but could be to some. There is a pull-down category that lists "best posts" (those with the most thanks) and "best users" (Lemons who have been thanked the most).

Removing just your posts from topics could also lead to gaps and make the discussion harder to follow.

[Hypster]

Maybe we should have a roll of honour for dearly departed lemons. Perhaps a new status that would change the colour of their username: not quite a Sainthood - maybe a ‘St Clement’ as a nod to our forum name.

[Dod101]

Maybe we should have a roll of honour for dearly departed lemons. Perhaps a new status that would change the colour of their username: not quite a Sainthood - maybe a ‘St Clement’ as a nod to our forum name.

Good idea.

Dod

[Dod101]

I have two registered names, Dod1010 and Dod101. The earlier one was the one I registered with in November 2016, like the majority of regular posters who migrated from TMF. I do not remember now why I registered a new name but I think I had mucked up the password or something on the old one. I would not mind in the least if the previous name were deleted (and the posts associated with it) The fact is that a lot of my posts anyway are cringeworthy when read in isolation so I have no problem about them being deleted as they were written to answer something at the time only.

One reason someone might wish to retain their full posting history in such a case is that it also records the number of posts made and the number of thanks/upvotes they have received (and made).

May not be important to many but could be to some. There is a pull-down category that lists "best posts" (those with the most thanks) and "best users" (Lemons who have been thanked the most).

Removing just your posts from topics could also lead to gaps and make the discussion harder to follow.

All are valid points of course and it just shows that the whole subject needs careful thought. personally I do not care about a record of the number of posts for instance, in fact it could be seen as a negative rather than otherwise!

Dod

[Clariman]

The options we have handling accounts includes

• deactivate (can be reactivated)
• delete user (retain posts)
• delete user (delete posts)

I don't think any of those are appropriate for a valued user who is no longer with us.

I think we can change a user name but I'd need to check. I don't see a need to do anything to the account of a deceased member but if we did, adding something to the account name would he my preference e.g. adding 'in memoriam' or IM.

[pje16]

The options we have handling accounts includes

• deactivate (can be reactivated)
• delete user (retain posts)
• delete user (delete posts)

I don't think any of those are appropriate for a valued user who is no longer with us.

I think we can change a user name but I'd need to check. I don't see a need to do anything to the account of a deceased member but if we did, adding something to the account name would he my preference e.g. adding 'in memoriam' or IM.

If i were to "pop off"
[*]delete user (retain posts)
would be my preference (I would prefer to be remembered)
I take that would show/mean no-one would expect replies from me
'in memoriam' is a nice touch